Quite simply, the only difference between the SHM CD and the Marino master, as indicated by these samples, is an extra 0.6db of gain, and additional brickwall clipping.

There are also diverse examples provided of the SHM-CD digital content being exactly the same (or suspected to be the same from track peaks) as the normal CD counterparts. Even then, several individuals are adamant that SHM-CDs sound better than their normal counterparts (even with the ones with increasing clipping). There has been absolutely no evidence found of any SHM-CD having a higher quality digital master than its normal CD counterpart.

The manufacturing technology has not been shown to give no benefit under normal CD playback conditions. But if all you're going to do is rip it to your computer, there's provably no benefit to SHM-CD.

A couple of incredibly bizarre threads over at sh.tv has uncovered hard evidence (some contributed by yours truly) that some SHM-CDs contain more clipping than their normal CD counterparts. On a LZ SHM-CD specifically:Quite simply, the only difference between the SHM CD and the Marino master, as indicated by these samples, is an extra 0.6db of gain, and additional brickwall clipping.

You mean, the supposed virtues of the format are offset by the actual mastering? Shocking.

Quote

There are also diverse examples provided of the SHM-CD digital content being exactly the same (or suspected to be the same from track peaks) as the normal CD counterparts. Even then, several individuals are adamant that SHM-CDs sound better than their normal counterparts (even with the ones with increasing clipping). There has been absolutely no evidence found of any SHM-CD having a higher quality digital master than its normal CD counterpart.

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

The scary one was the mastering 'engineer' Barry Diament's contributions to the thread where he refused to accept that when the WAV comparator in Exact Audio Copy says two WAVs are identical, that that would mean they are exactly the same mastering. He kept on saying the only way to be sure is to null the files after ensuring that the first samples line up.

I guess it proves that you don't need a degree in audio engineering to be a mastering 'engineer'.

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

The scary one was the mastering 'engineer' Barry Diament's contributions to the thread where he refused to accept that when the WAV comparator in Exact Audio Copy says two WAVs are identical, that that would mean they are exactly the same mastering. He kept on saying the only way to be sure is to null the files after ensuring that the first samples line up.

I guess it proves that you don't need a degree in audio engineering to be a mastering 'engineer'.

IME Diament's a fountain of dubious 'information' and audiophoolery. And in the end he will *always* retreat to 'I hear it, and that's all that matters'.

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

The scary one was the mastering 'engineer' Barry Diament's contributions to the thread where he refused to accept that when the WAV comparator in Exact Audio Copy says two WAVs are identical, that that would mean they are exactly the same mastering. He kept on saying the only way to be sure is to null the files after ensuring that the first samples line up.

I guess it proves that you don't need a degree in audio engineering to be a mastering 'engineer'.

IME Diament's a fountain of dubious 'information' and audiophoolery. And in the end he will *always* retreat to 'I hear it, and that's all that matters'.

Yeah, he is one of those people that argues that CDs made from exactly the same digital master can sound different simply because they were made in different pressing facilities, even if the discs contain identical data. This usually cues a pointless 'discussions' about jitter.

I haven't used EAC for a long time (I Use dBpowerAMP ripper), but doesn't it have a setting to delete silent samples at the start of files to ensure that the files will line up perfectly when compared?

i.e. an otherwise identical mastering may include slightly different indexing that appears as digital silence just before the track starts?

The propaganda; only thing i can think of, they propably put better mastered tracks to have illusion that there is superior quality thanks to CD, or they don`t even do that, and it`s normal master on better quality CD, maby it can last longer but 1 bit is a 1 bit!.

If comp returns a "Files Compare OK" then that means first.wav and second.wav are byte-for-byte exact duplicates.

They are on different sectors. Have you ever considered that?I am battling with few audiophiles about basic scientific concepts, but to no avail - I've been told that I've walked into "the land of unknown" .

Holy moly! The couple of comments about more scratch resistant CDs gave me the best idea. Zagg invisible shield for CDs. Sounds awesome no. Oh and about the difference in sound quality. Why all the discussion? Digital is digital, a bit is a bit end of discussion

They first searched for bit identical CDs (normal vs. shm cd) to avoid comparing different mastering. Well, that's good on the one hand, but on the other IMO they proved that they must sound identical. But in the listening test they heard clear differences, not surprisingly the SHM CD sounds better (english speakers, no need to translate. Some bullshit bingo attributes you already know from listening tests):

Hi, is true, bits are bits, but we need bits in the wright time. A music teacher said sometime that:" The correct note in the incorrect time is the incorrect note", is that clear?

For to represent a point in a wave form we need two coordinates ed X e YY is our famous BIT and x is the timebase, the exact time in that we need that bitIn the timebase ocurrs a series of infernal mistakes, jitter, read errors imperfections of the material, the form of the recorded hole in the metal layer, etc

Yes bits are bits but this is not enough, is necesary to consider the above for improve digital audio,probably SHM-CD did it.

Do you have any evidence that jitter in typical CD players is audibly relevant and that SHM-CD can fix this supposed problem? Otherwise, your post will be no more useful than all the many previous ones where people talked about the supposed perils of jitter but never substantiated any of it.

A couple of years ago I came across a SHM-CD, Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet, which according to its obi was a "reissue of the 1999 remaster as SHM-CD". So I took my copy of the original 1999 remaster and ripped them both to see if I could ABX those superior audio differences claimed by JVC. To my surprise AccurateRip results for both rips were actually identical track by track, except for the offset as two different pressings are expected to differ. Obviously after that I didn't waste my time trying to ABX two bit-identical files as I wouldn't expect to find any difference, let alone an 'audible improvement'.

The very same thing happened with an HQCD (similar technology developed by Toshiba) with a reissue in 2009 on this format of an originally released album in 2005 from a Japanese artist. The label didn't even touch the master in the slightest, so same AccurateRip results, different offsets again.

Since then, and even considering the limited amount of testing I've been able to perform and the simple tools used, my fear is that those newer formats which claim to improve the CD retaining compatibility with CD players are actually snake oil at their best. I mean, if they are only a reissue, then they do improve nothing, but do not make the sound worse either; a completely transparent format. However, as already ponted out before, if they are used to feature a new remaster for the occasion, I would be pretty reluctant to consider them even good.

So the whole idea that "we need rigth bit in right time" is meaningless.

The CD is still a physical format, and there must be some control mechanism wrgt how fast the CD spins, some local clock oscillator, the physical signal on CD and the digital/analog signal pushed out of the CD player. This control mechanism might be implemented with variable degrees of decoupling, stabilisation, delay, cost etc in mind. Intuitively, it sounds like an engineering problem that can be "solved", this does not mean that all solvable engineering problems are solved in practice...

It will be very hard to prove that two CDs that decode into the same PCM bytes using EAC cannot sound/measure different in some other circumstance. I guess that certain "error correction" methods may make this more likely (by messing with the built-in robustness of the CD medium). The diverse implementations of CD players (and records) makes it daunting to try to "prove" that "a bit is a bit".

Happily, the burden of proof cannot possibly be on the sceptic in this case. He who claims that two CD pressings sounds different to him, even though the information bytes are identical, should provide proof in the form of simple ABX tests, some sensible measurement, or accept being seen as something similar to homeopaths and other "believers". Being a believer does not make your conclusions wrong, btw, only the method that got you there (and thus, your conclusions cannot be trusted).

Rather than more hit-and-run posting, maybe you can explain in your own words how a disc is going to influence the timing of a CD player's DAC or the upstream decoder and demodulator before that, assuming you're concerned about the player's digital out.

Do you even have the faintest idea how data is organized on a compact disc?

Last Edit: 11 November, 2013, 12:40:07 PM by greynol

Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?